On Oct 9, 2008, at 8:57 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
> This keyword/scoping problem must already have appeared for functions
> as function declarations have "var" scoping and obtaining "let"
> scoping requires using something like "let a = function(){}". This is
> pretty ugly for functions to have "le
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:28 PM, David Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> How would people feel about the declaration form being 'define'
> instead of lambda? As in:
>
>define const(x) {
>lambda(y) x
>}
>
> Maybe I'm just accustomed to Scheme, but it looks awkward to me
> f
On Oct 9, 2008, at 6:44 PM, David Herman wrote:
> Sorry, I was unclear.
No, my fault for missing "declaration form".
> I meant 'lambda' for the expression form and 'define' for the
> definition form.
Do keywords cost more than concepts?
If people think define name(x) x and lambda (x) x are
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant 'lambda' for the expression form and 'define' for
the definition form.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: "Brendan Eich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Peter Michaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "es3 x-discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
es
On Oct 9, 2008, at 4:28 PM, David Herman wrote:
> How would people feel about the declaration form being 'define'
> instead of lambda? As in:
>
>define const(x) {
>lambda(y) x
>}
>
> Maybe I'm just accustomed to Scheme, but it looks awkward to me for
> the declaration form to b
On Oct 9, 2008, at 6:04 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> Mike Samuel wrote:
>> Mark,
>>
>> Do you know if the ES3.1 spec specifies GC behavior around Name
>> objects that
No Name objects in ES3.1.
/be
___
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.o
Mike Samuel wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Do you know if the ES3.1 spec specifies GC behavior around Name objects that
> are not referenced from any reachable or executing functions' scope chains,
> and are not a key for any enumerable property?
Typically language specs don't normatively specify GC behaviou
> I argued for "let" desugaring to "function" and I understand the
> problems with "arguments", "this" and "return". In light of the
> "lambda" idea below and that "let" could desugar to that more
> intuitively (i.e. Tenent's principle) to "lambda", I think what I was
> really asking/arguing for wa
> My question was whether the semantics of break and continue would
> support the following:
Yes, this is another good case to consider. Thanks for pointing it out; I'll
add this to the strawman:lambdas proposal. Essentially this is another aspect
of the semantics of 'function' that is implicit
On Oct 9, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
>> So, to avoid trouble, we've been thinking of new forms including a
>> better
>> function, call it lambda,
>
> Please call it "lambda"! :)
We do. Hard to beat, IMHO -- even if it originated in a typographical
compromise (http://dn.codegear.co
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Sorry for the very tardy reply. You make good points in the abstract, and
> the messy language-specific details of existing semantics for functions not
> being clean enough deserves a better response than just "don't
On Oct 9, 2008, at 3:05 PM, Lex Spoon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote: JS has break from labeled statement, and continue to labeled
> loop bottom, a la Java. These look trouble-free to me. Let me know
> if you see a hard case. Thanks,
>
> My
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> JS has break from labeled statement, and continue to labeled loop bottom, a
> la Java. These look trouble-free to me. Let me know if you see a hard case.
> Thanks,
>
My question was whether the semantics of break and conti
On Sep 2, 2008, at 2:16 PM, Lex Spoon wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> First, let's settle the hash over whether any desugaring without
>> extensions such as return-to-label, reformed lexical scope, tamed
>> this, banished arguments, etc. etc
I was looking at http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:names on
Name objects, and was wondering whether garbage collection of name objects
has been discussed.
I'm not a GC expert, so the below may be hopelessly naive, and I don't know
whether this kind of thing is appropriate for a langu
15 matches
Mail list logo
